Texas Tall Tales and Global Warming

“…extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s” It is this statement that has made headlines across the country. Headlines you shouldn’t believe.

Last week the national media was full of stories about how global warming has made Texas heat waves TWENTY TIMES more probable. We are talking about hundreds of stories in respected national media outlets (including NY Times, Washington Post, and even the Seattle Times). These stories were all based on an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (DID HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE MAKE THE 2011 TEXAS DROUGHT MORE PROBABLE? with lead authors David E. Rup and Philip W. Mote of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and some British colleagues…found here…scroll down to page 12).

The trouble is that this study is flawed and weak (and I will explain why) and its scary conclusions are insupportable. This is important story: about the hyping (past) of global warming, about poor research being published, about the media jumping on sexy, scary global warming stories. And most worrisome of all..this is not an isolated incident.

Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century. The impacts could be both profound and serious. But exaggerating the impact of human-induced warming on what is happening now and in the past only serves to weaken the efforts of the meteorological community to provide information society needs to make rational decisions. If you cry wolf too many times and are proven wrong it is bad for credibility.

So lets consider the Rup/Mote et al. study. Texas had an extraordinary six-month heat wave and drought in 2011…no doubt about it. The question is whether we can ascribe this event to global warming..human or otherwise.

Now to examine this issue, the authors of this article compared temperatures and precipitation for March through August and June through August over Texas between observations (from the National Climatic Data Center) and simulations by the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center Atmospheric General Circulation Model 3P (HadAM3P). This is a global atmospheric climate model typically used to simulate climate. Specially, they ran the climate model many times for the decades of 1960-1970 and 2000-2010. This is called an ensemble. Each ensemble member is started with a slightly different initial state in order to get some handle on the uncertainty of the forecast. Totals of 171, 1464, 522, and 1087 ensemble members were analyzed for 1964, 1967, 1968, and 2008, respectively. Why these used different number of ensemble members for each year is never explained. Furthermore, they selected those specific years because all were La Nina years. The idea was that La Nina/El Nino variability is an important natural sources of climate/weather change and could skew the results, so they wanted to insure that they were comparing apples to oranges. It turns out they forgot some other fruit (more later!)

The following is from figure 8 of their paper, showing a graph of temperature versus precipitation over Texas for March through August for both observations (National Climate Data Center, NCDC, 1895-2011) and the climate model (HadAM3P) ensembles for 1964 and 2008. For both observations and the model, there is a tendency for drier years to be warmer. But there are real warning signs that the climate model is out to lunch (or out to whatever climate models do when they are not doing their job!).

First, the climate model is MUCH warmer and drier than reality…and the observations included the dry/warm conditions of the 1930s. A serious bias. Furthermore, the relationship between temperature and precipitation in the model and observations are VERY different…very different slope, with the model warming up much more quickly as precipitation declines than the observations. Clearly, the model is not simulating Texas climate very well.

Rupp, Mote et al., Figure 8

With this flawed GCM simulation, the authors should have been hesitant in going further in the analysis, but they decided to use the biased/flawed modeling results to determine whether the chances of heat waves are increasing over Texas.

Their next figure shows a return time analysis of the model temperatures over Texas.

Specifically, using the collection of simulations for each of four years (1964, 1967, 1968, and 2008) they calculated the typical number of years one would have to wait until a certain mean March-August mean temperature occurs. So a mean of 25C would be expected to occur every 1-2 years in a 2008 climate and every 3-4 years for the 60s. 27C is expected to happen every 10 years for the climate of 2008 and perhaps once in 500 years (extrapolating the graph) for a 60s climate.

Furthermore, 100-yr return period MAMJJA and JJA heat events under 1964 conditions (roughly 26.5C) had only 5- and 6-yr return periods, respectively, under 2008 conditions. It is this graph that was the basis of their statement:

“extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s”

It is this statement that has made headlines across the country. Headlines you shouldn’t believe.

Let me explain why.

Now I already have shown you that the model “climate” was way too warm and dry, and its simulated relationship between temperature and precipitation was all wrong. But it is worst than that. Looking at their figure, you can see the average model temperatures (March-August) in 1964 (blue circles) are roughly 24.5C, while the model 2008 temperatures (red circles) are approximately 26.25C…so about 1.75C warmer (give or take .25C for my reading of the graph). (This kind of information SHOULD have been explicitly stated in the paper).

So what is really happening in Texas? How correct was the model? Mark Albright of the University of Washington acquired and plotted the NCDC observations over Texas and plotted the average Texas temperatures for March-June, and July-August (see below) for 1895-2011. In March through May there is a weak upward trend (perhaps .5F, .3C) over the entire period. The trend over June to August is much less. The second figure also shows how anomalous 2011 was…it was an extreme year that was completely outside the envelope of variability of the previous decades. There is no trend consistent with global warming…which slowly increased starting the mid-70s.

March-May

June-August

The bottom line: the actual observations show the temperatures over Texas have warmed by a perhaps a few tenths of a degree C since the mid-1960s, while the GCM model used by Rupp/Mote et al had major warming (1.5-2 C). Clearly, one can not trust the model and the conclusions reached in this paper are unsupportable.

And folks it is even worse than this. There are other modes of natural variability in the atmosphere, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO, which is associated with the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean, has a substantial impact on the weather of eastern N. America., including heat waves and droughts. During the mid to late1960s this cycle was in the negative (cool) phase, while in the 2000s it has been in the warm phase (associated with heat waves and droughts over the Midwest)–see graph.

Thus, the authors picked dates that would maximize the warming signal associated with natural variability, irrespective of global warming.

Moral of this Sad Story

This situation is so disappointing on so many levels. It is disappointing the peer review process has allowed this paper to be published in a well known and prestigious journal. I have learned from personal experience that articles noting major global warming effects fly through the review process with only cursory examination, while papers with a more nuanced view of the issue are given a hard time.

It is disappointing that the media distributed these results so widely…with headlines…throughout the nation and world. The faults noted above were easy to find…it appears that media folks don’t evaluate the materials they headline when it comes to science. Sometimes the media go wacky based on materials that are not even published in peer-review journals or are made available in press releases. They need to act more responsibly and secure the resources (e.g., trained science journalists) that have the time to insure the rigor of the materials they spotlight.

This is only one if series of weak global warming scare articles. My own sensitivity to the issue came five years ago when certain folks (including a coauthor of the Texas article) were hyping that global warming was resulting in the rapid loss of the Cascade snowpack (which has not declined in 30 years by the way). These folks think they are doing society a favor by hyping global warming impacts now and in the past. They aren’t. Most of the impacts of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are in the future and society will not believe us if you cry wolf now.

This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.

==========================================================

Cliff Mass is a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington, as well as a frequent television and radio commentator. While we are sometimes on opposite sides of the issue, I have great respect for his work, and I’m honored that he asked for his essay to be published here. Please bookmark his blog Cliff Mass Weather– Anthony

Post navigation

Did you mail this article to the NYT for them to publish too? Not that I expect that they will do that.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 9:48 pm

Martin C

I would sure like to see what Dr. Nielsen-Gammon would have to say about both the study (since he is in Texas), and about and Dr. Mass’s rebuttal. And then see a discussion about it between him and Dr. Brown (ref the recent 6 part feature of a discussion between Dr. Brown and Dr. Nielsen-Gammon ). Maybe time to break out the popcorn . . ? 🙂
Dr. Nielsen-Gammon wonders why people don’t accept all the ‘climate scientists’ work, such as the projections of a few to several degree temp increases in the next 50 -100 years (when for the last 15 or so years, global temps, sea level rise by a meter or more this century (when the latest data don’t show any acceleration in sea level – a report I saw references on reference on J. Sexton’s blog); and this with CO2 levels nearing 400 ppm. Those two items, plus the study and the rebuttal is a prime example ( . . without even mentioning Hansen, Gore . . ooooops , I just did . . .! ) 🙂

Delighted to see this article from Cliff. He is well respected by all up here in the Pacific Northwest. He has a book on NW weather that everyone loves. He is a no nonsense guy who has great credibility. I enjoyed his column earlier today and was going to enter a Tip for this site. No need.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 10:05 pm

betapug

“Climate Central is beginning work with 10 meteorologists in pivotal metro areas and regions where elevating concern or shifting opinion is critical. Our objective is to bring climate change into focus at the local level and in the weather-news cycle by delivering a steady stream of scientifically grounded information that links local weather to climate change, in a style that works for them. We deliver science-based talking points and broadcast-ready graphics, as well as expanded information for their blogs and personal lectures, customized to each market. We produce videos, compelling climate messages, and rapid response to extreme weather events. The TV Mets program is an opportunity to reach far beyond the usual environmental audiences to speak directly to a broad swath of the national population while testing what works for audiences in a variety of regions.”
With grants coming from various US government agencies as well as the usual private foundations http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/funding/ Climate Central’s “TV Mets” program to deliver “Meals,ready to eat” for cash starved media outlets would have a lot of appeal.
They are hiring now: ace.princeton.edu/fellowships/high-meadows-fellowships/climate-central-research-analyst-multimedia-journalist ….and you do not even have to be an American citizen!
I wondered why my local Vancouver TV station has started displaying temp maps with our recent (cooler and wetter than average) Spring 15 deg centigrade temp areas in molten red: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0XT4_PTJ5bUJ:ccimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/HeatIsOnReport.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESggcuR6HjP_EKn2Dan_H06-yf5-3pnNwCMMweolTsVqW_8ON-FfQH0p0NYaiIeSfPQwkEESmtRCjpfWO067WaeEQLjPysxOoYYcZGErTs_MVNRFDZ7vu1KTki71NUd1a9Kk2MvH&sig=AHIEtbS5TiXe8SgoOMhjvcHkCLNO4Qs3xQ&pli=1

Dr. Mass, it is too bad that this has happened about the peer-review and crying wolf. But, it’s too late for all of that now. There’s no going back. There is a significant segment of this society that simply laughs every time we see the same hyperbole. Sadly, all of you get painted with the same brush. I am heartened that someone still cares, but the trust and credibility ship sailed long ago. Peer review is to be mocked. Any paper which leans on such models is automatically disregarded. They’ve never been right to my knowledge, but if they were it would only be happenstance…….. useless computer games.
About the future warming……. I doubt it. But, even if it were so, there’s absolutely nothing to be done about it. We’ve wasted so much time, energy, and money on the silly non-workable solutions such as windmills and solar panels that any opportunity decrease atmospheric CO2 in the next hundred years or so was lost long ago.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 10:26 pm

davidmhoffer

Thank you Dr Mass for calling it like it is on this matter. If we had more “warmists” such as yourself engaging in the discussion, we might get some actual science percolating to the surface and we might even make some intelligent decisions along the way. All I’ve seen from the CAGW camp to date is hype, exageration, obfuscation, and the quality of much of the “science” is far worse than what you’ve pointed out here. If the theory had merit, it would rest on itz own evidence. That it doesn’t suggests that it has no merit. I’ll be persuaded otherwise if, and only if, honest open science emerges that points to that conclusion.
I think you and N-G (see previous thread) are doing something incredibly important by speaking out and engaging on the basis of the facts. Congrats and let’s see more of the same in the future.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 10:26 pm

John F. Hultquist

“If you cry wolf too many times and are proven wrong it is bad for credibility.”
And . . .
“ . . . society will not believe us if you cry wolf now.”
Too late.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 10:38 pm

Katherine

This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.
The Minoan Warm Period and Roman Climate Optimum were warmer and the human race not only survived but thrived. With all the technology currently available, Man is in a better position to adapt to warmer temperatures than ever before. It’s during the cold periods when famine and war are more prevalent.Most of the impacts of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are in the future and society will not believe us if you cry wolf now.
Since there hasn’t been any catastrophic warming, much less catastrophic warming directly attributable to human activity, the impacts of CAGW are all in the models and the fevered imaginings of the fearmongers hooked on the gravy train of CAGW.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 10:41 pm

davidmhoffer

James Sexton;
Any paper which leans on such models is automatically disregarded.
>>>>>>
Thanks for bringing that up, I almost forgot to make the point that not only have the models lost credibility, much of the climate “science” community has for doing what this bunch did. As Dr Mass points out, the model FAILED to model current conditions accurately, but the authors of this paper simply ignore that fact and published predictions based on the model KNOWING that the model got it wrong.
Climate “science” is replete with examples of this sort. Researchers clearly coming to conclusions based on their belief system, and then publishing results commensurate with that belief system despite their own data failing to produce any evidence to support that same belief system.
Dr Brown commented in another thread that skeptics ought to police themselves to help establish credibility. There’s a lot of junk science spouted in criticism of AGW. But CAGW is filthy with it, and it is high time that we saw some self policing from the other side. Good on ya Dr Mass.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 10:45 pm

Brian H

Edit:
“But it is worst than that.”
Use the comparative, not the absolute, please.
“more worser” — or SLT.
😉

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 11:08 pm

Brian H

“This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.”
Hmm. Since global warming is of trivial concern, or at worst much to be encouraged, the proper conclusion is that the climate science community should be applauded for issuing a steady stream of stupidities like this, as their totally unearned credibility needs to be detonated ASAP!!

Warmists have simply entered the world of the delusional and frauds. They simply do not get the fact that the world is coming to believe they are fruitcakes.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 11:25 pm

dough

Gentlemen: Global warming is not about science. It is a cause celeb for establishing a one world government.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 11:36 pm

rgbatduke

I would sure like to see what Dr. Nielsen-Gammon would have to say about both the study (since he is in Texas), and about and Dr. Mass’s rebuttal. And then see a discussion about it between him and Dr. Brown (ref the recent 6 part feature of a discussion between Dr. Brown and Dr. Nielsen-Gammon ). Maybe time to break out the popcorn . . ? 🙂
I believe that’s his next topic, and I rather expect that he’ll rip its guts out too. It sounds like shoddy work. And as the article above states, it reduces the credibility of this entire approach and climate scientists in general when something like this is published and nobody says anything within the field, waiting for the Steve McIntyres of the universe to intervene from outside of it to produce even greater embarrassment and loss of confidence later.
Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.
rgb

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 11:36 pm

davidmhoffer

Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.
rgb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you think there had been an actual uptick recently? Or are you just more sensitive to it because you’ve been following the debate more closely than in the past? I think the papers come out in waves around the IPCC reports, so we’re seeing a lot of hasty writing to get in under the AR5 deadline, but without having actually quantified it in some way, my impression is that the steady stream of hype and tripe has not changes much in the last 20 years. (In other words, the uptick you notice appears to be within natural variability of hype and tripe 😉 )

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 11:44 pm

Kev-in-Uk

”This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.” (Presses big red gameshow buzzer! – errr, errr…!)
I assume this is meant as a statement from a warmist stance? and this despite the very fact that the author confirms that there has been only a smidge of warming in Texas over the entire record anyway! So, whilst I appreciate the article, and the apparent ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ of the author – it seems somewhat crazy to include the last, clearly ‘blinkered’ statement!
Why do we need to take global warming seriously? – when the scientific community promoting it are over-hyping and blovating?
Perhaps another explanation is that Dr Mass knows he is on the wrong side? and needs to raise some ‘gentle’ dissent in the warmista ranks?

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 11:54 pm

Venter

Very well said Dr.Brown. Absolutely spot on.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 15, 2012 11:54 pm

Carbon500

As I read the unfolding story, I inreasingly wondered if any historic real world data was available – and there we have it, average Texas temperatures from 1895 to 2011, and another fairy story exposed.
Another inconvenient truth.

To be fair, Dr Mass’ contribution has advanced the cause of proper science, and kudos to him for that. We need proper scientists like him, to comprehensively analyse the warmist rubbish that ends up in the MSM.
Well done, well done!

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 12:36 am

Peter Miller

It was a pleasant surprise to see a well-argued warmist commentator here on WUWT.
I think most of us agree the world’s climate will warm a little due to the activities of man (subject, of course, to the machinations of natural climate cycles), but that this will not be catastrophic in any way.
It is truly very rare to read something from the warmist side, which is not full of grant addicted drivel and dubious/fraudulent data manipulation. Dr Mass appears to realise the yawning credibility gap caused by climate ‘scientists’ in their pursuit of fame, financial gain and grants will be the cause of the ultimate demise of the CAGW cult.
All that is needed from the warmist side is for them to practice science, not ‘science,’ and much of their credibility will be restored.

If the AMO is a major factor in the Texas temps, I suggest to keep an eye on the far north Atlantic atmospheric pressure. It is just about to cross into negative territory (see second link below) indicating rapid cooling in the SST in the forthcoming 2-3 decades.
It is a natural oscillation, poorly understood, I’ve done some work but for the moment no interest, the CO2 has favor with academia and the like.
You can find more what is in store for the future of the AMO :http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htmhttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-SST-ea.htm

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 12:57 am

Biffo

Not only is the reputiation of the scientific community being tarnished by this sort of garbage, but the media are showing that they no longer care about being proper journalists. As long as the media can get a juicy headline or a convenient activist article to cut & paste, they’ll print anything. No wonder the circulation of newspapers is dropping off so much.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 12:58 am

jono1066

We beat you guys hands down on this one ….
The Respected (doff cap, touch forelock) British newspaper called “The Times” (Sunday 15th July) ran an article …
“A flood of facts to overwhelm climate sceptics” quoting the NOAA “extreme weather events” 2011 report and the fact “that last years record warm Novemeber was 60 (SIXTY) times more likely” than 50 years ago due to global warming etc etc
They also threw in the 20% figure for the Texas drought for good measure in the reasonably balanced article, while still being a gentle `call to arms` for the government to take action.
And I thought things were bigger in Texas
regards

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 1:12 am

Disko warmy Troop

Giving a powerful computer and a climate model to a climatologist is like giving a chimpanzee a hammer. He might think he is making a cabinet…..You might think he is making a cabinet….But he is not; he is just hitting things with the hammer.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 1:22 am

rogerknights

rgb:
“Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”

One thing that I have thought about when scientific research is said to be consistent with models is, must not the model be proven to work and predict climate accuratly before it can be used or related to? If I am not wrong 17 or 30 years is the minimum time that has to be used in order to claim it is climate on not weather.
I don’t think those models used have been predicting climate for up to 30 years with good accuracy yet.

rgb: Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.
Perhaps not so “odd” if one looks closely. First, the centre popcorn-piece recently has been the Gergis paper, with all the fanfare and bad behaviour from Karoly (for reasons well noted here). Probably Gergis got grants at the time when the government was in maximum thrall to the warmists’ siren song and now the cuckoo has hatched. Second, there was the Gleick episode which might stick in your mind as “something like Gergis”. Third, you yourself have gotten really interested and involved, which means you personally notice more. Fourth, there is the warm-up to IPCC-5 and there must be a sense of Götterdämmerung where fewer and fewer diehards are pushing harder and harder with less and less substance.
Perhaps one day now we’ll finally see one of the august bodies breaking rank and owning corporately what many of its members individually and privately believe.
But people hate to own being in the wrong. Leaders especially. And even here, there are some topics I cannot bring up (or only with difficulty, fear of failure, and inadequate brevity) even though I might consider them highly relevant to Climate Science and of a substance that will, at some point in the future, need to be reconsidered, if the science is going to truly advance and reclaim integrity.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 1:54 am

Gary Hladik

“The faults noted above were easy to find…it appears that media folks don’t evaluate the materials they headline when it comes to science.”
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 1:59 am

mike about town

you would want to correct this line:
“Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century. “

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 2:07 am

Mindert Eiting

Dear Dr. Mass,
Thanks for your contribution. May I suggest the following approach to your collegues? Determine with a random number generator a region on the earth with the size of Texas. Determine with a random number generator a period of six months from the last few decades. Determine the likelihood of the observed temperatures in the obtained region and epoch with the models and repeat that with models assuming zero CO2 forcing. Compute the likelihood ratio. This may be the beginning of a scientific approach, avoiding post-hoc fallacies and meaningless comparisons of probabilities.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 2:09 am

Alan the Brit

Sincere apologies & all that, but am I missing something, were there no La Nina years for the forty years from 1968 to 2008 at all? I know things go in cycles as is clearly demonstrated by the graphics, but surely there must have been something? Oh well, must be Global Warming, then!
BTW folks, here in the PDREU state of UK (get it? state of UK, brother what a state it’s in too!) it’s raining, again!!!!! Even we die hards are beginning to get fed up with it! Dear old Met Office, they haven’t a clue, bless their little cotton socks, they tell us authoritatively that it’s the Jet Stream, but very little info on why it’s the Jet Stream! They are truly hopeless, their forecasts are constantly peppered with doubt & uncertainty, yet we’re supposed to believe every word they utter about Global Warming,……bless! 🙁

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 2:10 am

mike about town

and this: “But it is worst than that.”
(i would gladly send this privately if i knew where to send it!)

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 2:24 am

Slabadang

Its a tradgedy for science and demcoracy when it turnes out to be an corrupted idiocracy!
I think that corruption of science is the last stage before a collaps of society as we know it and there are many who wants that to happen. Some are acting with perpose most are just useful idiots! It takes guts and a lot of moral to publish this important proof of what we are up aginst!
Thanks Dr Mass…

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 2:26 am

Jimbo

Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century.

When I look at Hansen’s 1988 projections / scenarios and compare them to today I really do have my doubts about this statement. There is a serious divergence problem as can be seen with one’s won eyes. Ditto IPCC’s earliest projections / scenarios.

I am afraid that the good doctor’s first statement-that he is a believer in the GHG theory- failed the whole article for me. The whole theory is based on model forecasts but observations show that this theory is false. Temperatures are falling but the atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. The very opposite to theory predictions. The middle troposphere hot spot predicted by the theory has not been found by the daily observations using radiosonde.
It is a fact of science that if observations are not as a theory predicts then the theory is wrong not the observations. Unfortunately it is also a fact that when observations are found not to agree with this onerous theory the observations are altered to fit. The good doctor should remember this.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 2:39 am

Chris Wright

Of course, as this comes from a convinced believer in AGW / CAGW, it probably carries more weight, as no one can accuse him of being a ‘climate change denier’.
He has done an excellent job of showing this research to be the nonsense that it is. But it doesn’t seem to occur to him that this nonsense is pretty standard practice for AGW science in general. Perhaps if he could be a bit more sceptical, as all scientists should be, he would start to question the very basis of AGW / CAGW.
Chris

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 3:08 am

terrarious

rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”
Since I too noticed that Australia is copping a similar barrage, I questioned whether these events are part of a far bigger plan, than to be just random publicity by individuals.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 3:11 am

Old Forge

On a positive note, I caught a BBC comedy programme on Friday night ( a repeat from December last year) where comedian Steve Hughes hits CAGW head on – great fun, and his punchline got a roar of approval from the audience:
Steve Hughes (on BBC’s ‘Live at the Apollo’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018hb3p/Live_at_the_Apollo_Series_7_Episode_6/ at 27.30 mins)
‘Then we deal with that [War on Terror]. And then next, what do we deal with, while this is all happening?
“Aww, by the way, the planet’s broken. It’s all warmed up. And, er, yeah … we have to fix it … now, ‘cos we’ve broken it. And, er, y’know, we’ve done tests.”
“Who has?”
“Y’know, experts.”
“Who are they?”
“Aggh, don’t worry about it. They’re here.”
What are you talking about? I don’t even believe in it. People freak out.
“Waddya mean you don’t believe in it? You have to believe in it … it’s the law!”
“Oh, it’s not yet … I’m sure it soon will be, but until then, no.”
Why should I believe in it, what are you talking about? They’re running round the world dropping depleted uranium all over the earth, sitting there letting nuclear weapons off under the sea and the rest of us, what are we going to do? Sit at home, with a special light bulb and a shopping bag for life?’
[Biggest laugh of the evening from the audience.]

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 3:12 am

Dr Burns

“I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century”
A scientist would have evidence rather than being a religious true believer.
Where is your evidence ?

betapug-they are called memes–“units of information that, once mastered, condition–indeed constitute!–the way we think and that can be passed on to person to person.” TV sound bites to create the desired filtering memes.
When an economic model is wrong it can sometimes be difficult to locate the wrong variable or improper assumption. Models about future changes in temperature, not so much.
I have written about the Future Earth Alliance. Beyond the UN agencies and the Belmont Forum funders, you have the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the International Social Science Council trying to merge the natural and social sciences around the sustainability model. One of the other goals of this Earth System Science Partnership work is to “break down the traditional walls between scientific disciplines and between science and policy.”
Not only are the models wrong, it is erroneous models that are to serve as the basis for transformative policy changes in human behaviors, economic systems, political systems, and society itself.
So yes these are bad models but they are modelling with aspirations that have nothing to do with temperatures or even climate.
And I also want to thank Cliff Mass for being a plaintiff in the valiant effort to change the tragic math curriculum being used in Seattle schools and to get the school board there to quit disregarding the negative consequences in making their decisions. Believe it or not, there is a direct connection between those corrupting NSF Math-Science Partnerships to change curricula and instructional practices that too many states, universities, and school districts have in place and the climate science corrupting grants.
Apparently in the future all science is to be political science. And it won’t impact the weather or climate at all. Just our ability to respond to what ever happens.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 4:18 am

j ferguson

This is a very minor point, but i think the thought might have been “comparing apples to apples” with regard to using la nina years in the comparisons.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 4:37 am

Frank K.

terrarious says:
July 16, 2012 at 3:11 am
rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”
—
No, it’s not odd. This is an election year in the U.S. The CAGW fanatics know their funding (aka Climate Ca$h) will be cut substantially if Obama is NOT reelected. Hence, they are pulling out all the stops to create a phony climate crisis – with help, of course, from the dysfunctional MSM.

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 5:07 am

DaveS

I hope Dr Peter Stott of the UK Met Office reads this, he’s just used the Texas heatwave as evidence of a direct link bewteen climate change and extreme weather events – with the inevitable caveat that much more (lucrative) research is needed…

Vote Up0Vote Down

July 16, 2012 5:24 am

David

Yeah – this story got picked up by one of the ‘greenist’ columnists in the UK ‘Sunday Times’ this week. He also stated that ‘Arctic sea ice has shrunk by a third…’ er, really..? Not according to the (unbiased) satellite-viewed graphs – unless of course he’s talking about the normal seasonal shrinkage which takes place every year in the northern hemisphere summer….

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy